Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Public Enemies Look

It's not.
I'm not saying it's ok to criticize a director just off a trailer, but I do think it's absolutely fair to critique a trailer's style based on what is being seen. More than that, isn't that what trailers are for????
A trailer is an ad for what's to come. If someone sees something they think doesn't look right, or is 'unpleasing to the eye' they have every right to say what's on their mind. Even more so, the viewer is the person who eventually coughs up the $$ to see these films.
Film is art...art gets discussed and criticized.
IMHO....Judge away.

EDIT: I should have said discuss away...not judge. My bad.
 
... folks ... we have to wait and see ...

btw ... it's not shot with the RED ... so why that excitement ... it could not be good at all ! :-) just kidding !
 
Vince K said:
Film is art...art gets discussed and criticized.
Click to expand...

So is a trailer. They are, however, two very different art forms with two very different finishing paths and two very different purposes.

Films are cut, mixed, and, yes, graded, to tell a story. The look is part of an overall storytelling plan, one that is designed to capture your interest for an extended length of time, rarely less than 90 minutes. A trailer is a commercial. It is meant to get your interest for a very short period of time, and it is cut, mixed, stylized, graded, and combined with visual effects and graphics to grab your eye and your brain for a very short period of time and show you brief moments of action in order to get you to want to see a movie that may or may not bear any serious resemblance to the trailer. Very much in the same way that a car commercial will show you a car running at breakneck speeds that are illegal in any country on earth, taking turns on mountain roads at speeds that if driven by any normal driver would send the car and the driver over the cliff, and usually with a hot blond in the passenger seat that you, the audience, will never have. A movie trailer is in no way designed to appeal to cinematography aficionados because they don't make up a significant percentage of the intended audience. It is designed to appeal to people who want to see the movie because they like Michael Mann, they like Johnny Depp, they like gangster movies, or they just like to see bad guys killing people and blowing stuff up.

Forming judgments on the cinematography of a motion picture by looking at a trailer is just like judging how a car drives based on a commercial. You can form a preliminary opinion based on what you see. You can even get excited about the prospect of what the experience of driving the car might be. But actually driving the car may prove to be something quite different. And usually will. Trailers are far more an exercise in picture and sound editing than anything else. If you don't believe this, you might want to go to YouTube and search for trailer re-editing exercises. There are some very good and very clever recuts of trailers that turn the movie they're describing into something completely different than what it actually is. One of my personal favorites is one that someone did for "The Shining," which turns the classic horror story into a "heartwarming family comedy." And very effectively.
 
Well....first off, I'll give you a 3/5:auto:on your car analogy.
I totally see your point, and it makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure I would agree on that particular analogy 100%, but I digress.

mmost said:
If you don't believe this, you might want to go to YouTube and search for trailer re-editing exercises. There are some very good and very clever recuts of trailers that turn the movie they're describing into something completely different than what it actually is. One of my personal favorites is one that someone did for "The Shining," which turns the classic horror story into a "heartwarming family comedy." And very effectively.
Click to expand...

I've heard of this, so I can't say I don't believe you. :)
I've never seen any examples, but it sounds very interesting though, and I would love to see some.

Great...I'll be online all night now researching. Thanx alot!! lol
 
Vince K said:
Well....first off, I'll give you a 3/5:auto:on your car analogy.
I totally see your point, and it makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure I would agree on that particular analogy 100%, but I digress.



I've heard of this, so I can't say I don't believe you. :)
I've never seen any examples, but it sounds very interesting though, and I would love to see some.

Great...I'll be online all night now researching. Thanx alot!! lol
Click to expand...

Don't forget 'Scary' Poppins. That was pretty well done.
________
VOYEUR NIGHT
 
It actually took me 30 seconds to find a massive list of examples. Holy Crap!!!

Just watched Scary Poppins too....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic

...as much as I like the creativity in creating this different effect for the trailers, this is not an example of what I was looking for in regards to changing or re adjusting the trailer to fit the film. This is quite over the top.

In my car analogy- :cool: - I can watch an ad for a Corvette, see the guy driving and taking curves at breakneck speed, watch as the hot blonde's hair blows with the roof down
and see them drive off into the sunset - all with the reasonable expectation that I can change ANY of those variables once Ive paid my money....ie I can change the paint color, tire size, rims, my speed, and blonde OR brunette...:cool:

For this trailer, I only see Mann's the director, Depp's the heartthrob, and the color and style is what it is.
Later, once I've paid my money, I can't change a thing....except for my choice of theaters I guess. j/k...I like Michael Mann.

However....I like this look ithey've used, and will probably go see this movie.

Depp's so dreamy!:rolleyes5:
 
Vince K said:
It actually took me 30 seconds to find a massive list of examples.

Just watched Scary Poppins too....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic

...but this is not an example of what a trailer is meant for.
Click to expand...

Au contraire. It's EXACTLY what a trailer is meant for. How many times have you seen a horror picture whose trailer was far, far scarier than the actual movie? Or a comedy whose trailer was hilarious, but the actual feature fell completely flat? Or a trailer that made a murder mystery appear to be an action movie? That's what trailers are for: a device to make you want to see a movie, using whatever means necessary to get you interested. And using all of the tools of post production to do it, since trailers are essentially creations of post production. Don't fool yourself into thinking that a trailer is supposed to be a "preview" of the movie. It's not. It's a sales reel. A commercial. A way of trying to sell the product, whether it's good or not.

Especially if it's not.
 
mmost said:
Au contraire. It's EXACTLY what a trailer is meant for. How many times have you seen a horror picture whose trailer was far, far scarier than the actual movie? Or a comedy whose trailer was hilarious, but the actual feature fell completely flat? Or a trailer that made a murder mystery appear to be an action movie? That's what trailers are for: a device to make you want to see a movie, using whatever means necessary to get you interested. And using all of the tools of post production to do it, since trailers are essentially creations of post production. Don't fool yourself into thinking that a trailer is supposed to be a "preview" of the movie. It's not. It's a sales reel. A commercial. A way of trying to sell the product, whether it's good or not.

Especially if it's not.
Click to expand...

Now THAT I get. I'll be right back........:hanged:
 
I have no problem with the trailer or the style choices I've seen so far.

"Honestly, I can't say I know what Mann/Spinotti were going for, but I can't help but feel that what I see in the trailer seems to be at odds with the content, considering it's a period piece and all."

Others have mentioned that this is in all likelihood an intentional choice to get away from the film look and do something completely different. It's really not that hard to understand.

The average audience member sees video content like that on TV all the time, probably more than film and film-like material.

Making Dillinger more like a reality TV show for an audience immersed in reality TV shows seems like a stroke of brilliance, to me.

I also loved what Oliver Stone did with the image in Natural Born Killers (and other films). Not sure I liked the movie as a whole. The choice of various formats, though, and the wacky way it played (particular the murder of the father) was great.

The Political Film Blog
(Writers & Filmmakers Welcome)
 
mail4joeg said:
I also loved what Oliver Stone did with the image in Natural Born Killers...Not sure I liked the movie as a whole. The choice of various formats, though, and the wacky way it played (particular the murder of the father) was great.
Click to expand...

It probably wasn't nearly as wacky if you were using the same drugs that Oliver and Woody were.

You know, this whole discussion reminds me of a great lesson I learned back in the mid 80's from the head of development at a very large television production company I worked for at the time. I was post supervisor on a pilot, and having been given the network delivery specs, I found it necessary to point out that we seemed to be short in terms of delivery footage by about 5 minutes. The show played well - better than it had a right to - but I thought we'd have to get it to length in order to deliver it for the network to screen. The development head invited me into his office and calmly (but firmly) explained to me that a pilot isn't a show. It's a sales reel. A device to get the network excited enough to buy it as a series, and since it was his job to sell it, he needed that sales reel to be as effective as possible given what we had. Once they buy it, THEN we'll turn it into an actual show. It was a very good lesson to learn, as we wound up delivering the pilot almost 10 minutes short (not 5) and the network bought it. The development exec was a guy named Les Moonves (now chairman of CBS). The company was Lorimar. The network was ABC. The show was "Studio 5B," of which 6 episodes were made and aired. True story.
 
mmost said:
It probably wasn't nearly as wacky if you were using the same drugs that Oliver and Woody were.

You know, this whole discussion reminds me of a great lesson I learned back in the mid 80's from the head of development at a very large television production company I worked for at the time. I was post supervisor on a pilot, and having been given the network delivery specs, I found it necessary to point out that we seemed to be short in terms of delivery footage by about 5 minutes. The show played well - better than it had a right to - but I thought we'd have to get it to length in order to deliver it for the network to screen. The development head invited me into his office and calmly (but firmly) explained to me that a pilot isn't a show. It's a sales reel. A device to get the network excited enough to buy it as a series, and since it was his job to sell it, he needed that sales reel to be as effective as possible given what we had. Once they buy it, THEN we'll turn it into an actual show. It was a very good lesson to learn, as we wound up delivering the pilot almost 10 minutes short (not 5) and the network bought it. The development exec was a guy named Les Moonves (now chairman of CBS). The company was Lorimar. The network was ABC. The show was "Studio 5B," of which 6 episodes were made and aired. True story.
Click to expand...

...and very interesting too. :)
 
I've seen the movie several times now and I love the look. Very desat but worked for the story. I saw it on a nice digital christie that makes everything look good.

I did think Miami Vice was horrible on every level though, except for Colin's wardrobe, the unused duplicates I got to keep and fit me perfectly.
 
I worked on this film and shot film on a vintage Mitchell hand crank news camera. When we were shooting it seemed to me that we were not shooting a period piece. It seemed like NYPD Blue meets the 1930s. I am really looking forward to seeing the film to see if it worked. I am also curious if what I shot made the cut.

I feel like it will be like the image on "Knowing". I didn't like how clean it was. I saw it on a sony 4K ultrascreen. The lack of grain felt weird but the film worked. It was like watching a huge HD blue ray, not like watching a film print. At the same time I think this is what the audiences will come to accept as the new standard. It will be very interesting to see how the average film viewer responds to this new style. But even if they don't like the style, Deep's performance will bring them back.
 
I saw the trailer on the big screen recently and it made a huge difference in the look of the picture I quite liked the result.
Also the new international trailer on apple is pretty nice looking as well.
 
Michael P. Schmidt said:
thats the "open-shutter-michael-mann-F23-video-look"
since "collateral" very popular in michael mann-movies

(ok, i know, first big F23 assignment for michael mann ;-)

but i think, we really have to wait for the finale movie

(but the trailer looks a bit too video-ish for an "old gangster-movie", thats right...)
Click to expand...

i like the look of the trailer and i agree we shouldn't judge yet until the movie is out.
 
IDK guys... At it's most base a trailer is supposed to be an intriguing yet somewhat trueish reprsentation of the full material. It's not like Mann is stupid and doesnt know how to make a trailer that represents his vision, or for some bizzare reason let slip something that's divergent from his final work. Judging from Collateral and Vice, it pretty much looks like I was expecting out of his current process and if it looks amaturish or videoish to some, why is it heresy for them to feel that way?

I find this whole exchange very facsinating. It polarized pretty fast...
 
Rakesh - I think the insinuation that it looks 'amateurish' is what caused the polarization - Because it CLEARLY doesn't look like it was shot by Amateurs.

Some people might find it has an unpleasing aesthetic, it looks 'videoish' or something - but equating that to amateur is the problem - a look derived because you can't achieve anything else and don't treat your tools seriously or take your role as seriously as if it was what you had to do to earn a living an feed your family is amateur.

A look derived because you are exercising your tools and skills in a professional manner to make something in a specific way when alternatives are available to you, easily, may be unpopular, it may be dissatisfying to an audience, it may even be a mistake - but it's not an amateur decision.
 
I agree, I don't think it's amature at all, but not just on this board, but in my personal life I've heard comments to that affect about the trailer. Even my wife, when we saw it in theaters first had a weired look on her face. I asked her what's wrong and she thought some of the shots looked like camcorder and basically thought Depp was in a low budget movie; she's a nurse and couldn't give 2 shits about the technical aspects of filmmaking. I tried to explain how it wasn't bad, it was Mann's technique and gear/stylistic choice and she was like "whatever..." And I've had similar comments expressed to me by filmmakers and non-filmmakers alike.
I just find some of the responses funny, especially the second poster, LOL. It's a "how dare you sir, you don't have the credibility to criticize this!" I think that type of an attitude is counterproductive. Art is not about whether some thing is good or bad, but in this case, how it's percieved by an audience is important, after all, and especially since this isn't a personl art project, it's a commercial release.
And seriously, I have no problems with either side of the argument, I find it fascinating really :thumbsup:
 
Just saw the trailer on tv last night, having only seen it on the net before - it looks ten times worse on a CRT :ack2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top